Charelle Mei Sy

11-0073

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA

G.R. No. 231989, September 04, 2018

FACTS:
 On or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o’clock in the evening,
at Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, Romy Lim had in his possession, custody
and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous
drug, with a total weight of 0.02 gram, accused knowing fully well that the
substance recovered from his possession is a dangerous drug – contrary to
and in violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165.
 On even date, Lim, together with his stepson, Eldie Gorres y Nave was also
indicted for illegal sale of shabu. They offered to sell and give away to a
PDEA Agent acting as poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing shabu with a total weight of 0.02 gram in consideration of
Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00).
 In their arraignment, Lim and Gorres pleaded not guilty. They were detained
in the city jail during the joint trial of the cases.

Version of the Prosecution

 Around 8:00 p.m. that same day, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at
Regional Office X of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Based
on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Romy" has been
engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan
de Oro City, they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. Edwin
Layese, to gather for a buy-bust operation.
 Arriving at around 10pm, IO1 Carin and the CI alighted from the vehicle near
the comer leading to the house of "Romy," while IO1 Orellan and the other
team members disembarked a few meters after and positioned themselves
in the area to observe. IO1 Carin and the CI turned at the comer and stopped
in front of a house. The CI knocked at the door and uttered, "ayo, nang
Romy.”
 Gorres came out and invited them to enter. Inside, Lim was sitting on the
sofa while watching the television. When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a
shabu buyer, nodded and told Gorres to get one inside the bedroom. Gorres
stood up and did as instructed. After he came out, he handed a small
medicine box to Lim, who then took one piece of heat-sealed transparent
plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin paid him with
the buy-bust money.
 IO1 Carin then executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was the signal.
The team then rushed to Lim’s house. IO1 Orellan declared that they were
PDEA agents and informed Lim and Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of
 their arrest for selling dangerous drug. They were ordered to put their hands
on their heads and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda
rights to them. Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a body search on both.
 Upon frisking Lim, no deadly weapon was found but something big was in
his pocket. Inside were the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular
plastic box about 3x4 inches in size. They could see that it contained a plastic
sachet of a white substance. As for Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was
seized.
 While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the sachets. Despite exerting efforts
to secure the attendance of the representative from the media and barangay
officials, nobody arrived to witness the inventory-taking.
 The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with
IO1 Orellan in possession of the seized items. Upon arrival, they "booked"
the two accused and prepared the letters requesting for the laboratory
examination on the drug evidence and for the drug test on the arrested
suspects as well as the documents for the filing of the case.
 Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the confiscated items.
It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also, there was no signature of an
elected public official and the representatives of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the media as witnesses. Pictures of both accused and the evidence
seized were taken.
 The next day, both accused and the drug specimens were taken to the
Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10. PSI Caceres, who was a Forensic
Chemist, and Police Officer 2 (PO2) Bajas personally received the letter-
requests and the sachets. Based on the urine samples taken from them, only
Lim was positive for shabu. But based on the chromatographic exam, both
accused were found positive with respect to the two sachets. PSI Caceres
put her own marking on the container of the sachets, and gave them to the
evidence custodian. As to the buy-bust money, the arresting team turned it
over to the fiscal's office during the inquest.

Version of the Defense

 That same day, at 10pm, Lim was sleeping in the bedroom, while Gorres was
watching the television. When the latter heard that somebody jumped over
their gate, he stood up to verify. Before he could reach the door, however,
it was already forced opened by the repeated pulling and kicking of men in
civilian clothing.
 They entered the house, pointed their firearms at him, instructed him to
keep still, boxed his chest, slapped his ears, and handcuffed him. They
inquired on where the shabu was, but he invoked his innocence. When they
asked the whereabouts of "Romy”, he answered that he was sleeping inside
the bedroom. So the men went there and kicked the door open. Lim was
then surprised as a gun was pointed at his head. When he asked what was
happening, he was told to keep quiet.
 The men made them sit on a bench. Lim was apprised of his Miranda rights.
Then, they were brought to the PDEA Regional Office and the crime
laboratory. During the inquest proceedings, Lim admitted, albeit without the
 assistance of a counsel, ownership of the two sachets of shabu because he
was afraid that the police would imprison him. Like Gorres, he was not
involved in drugs at the time of his arrest but was however, previously
arrested by the PDEA agents before. He was acquitted.
 Both the accused acknowledged that they did not have any quarrel with the
PDEA agents. Rubenia, Lim's live-in partner and the mother of Gorres, was
at her sister's house in Pita, Pasil, Kauswagan the night when the arrests
were made. The following day, she returned home and noticed that the door
was opened and its lock was destroyed. She took pictures of the damage
and offered the same as exhibits for the defense, which the court admitted
as part of her testimony.

RTC Ruling
 Lim was found guilty for illegal possession and sale of shabu, but Gorres was
acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence linking him as conspirator.
 It held that the weight of evidence favors the positive testimony of IO1
Orellan over the feeble and uncorroborated denial of Lim. As to the sale of
shabu, it ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the identity of the
buyer, the seller, the money paid to the seller, and the delivery of the shabu.

CA Ruling
 CA affirmed the decision. It agreed with the finding of the trial court that the
prosecution adequately established all the elements of illegal sale of a
dangerous drug as the collective evidence presented during the trial showed
that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted. Likewise, all the elements of
illegal possession of a dangerous drug was proven.
 Lim resorted to denial and could not present any proof or justification that
he was fully authorized by law to possess the same.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Lim was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
 NO. The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and Lim should
be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

RATIO:
 The links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure
and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized illegal drug by
the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the
illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from
the forensic chemist to the court.
 The court previously held that the immediate physical inventory and
photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused
in instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and
 the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by
immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have
the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. The present case is
not one of those.
 Here, IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 bill, the plastic box with the
plastic sachet of white substance, and a disposable lighter. IO1 Carin also
turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the
house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. IO1 Orellan testified that
he immediately conducted the marking and physical inventory of the two
sachets of shabu. To ensure that they were not interchanged, he separately
marked the item sold by Lim to IO1 Carin and the one that he recovered
from his possession upon body search with both bearing his initial/signature.
 Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and
representatives of the DOJ and the media to witness the physical inventory
and photograph of the seized items. In fact, their signatures do not appear
in the Inventory Receipt.
 It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to
the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not
obtained due to reason/s such as:
o (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a
remote area;
o (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the
accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;
o (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts
sought to be apprehended;
o (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media
representative and an elected public official within the period required
under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no
fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged
with arbitrary detention; or
o (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which
often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers
from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the
offenders could escape
 In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and
barangay officials arrived at the crime scene because it was late at night and
it was raining, making it unsafe for them to wait at Lim's house.
 IO2 Orcales similarly declared that the inventory was made in the PDEA office
considering that it was late in the evening and there were no available media
representative and barangay officials despite their effort to contact them. He
admitted that there are times when they do not inform the barangay officials
prior to their operation as they might leak the confidential information.
 The Court is of the view that these justifications are unacceptable as there
was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.
 The prosecution likewise failed to explain why they did not secure the
presence of a representative from the Department the arresting officer. IO1
 Orellan, stated in his Affidavit that they only tried to coordinate with the
barangay officials and the media, the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses failed to show that they tried to contact a DOJ representative.
 The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also failed to establish the
details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure presence of the
required witnesses. They also failed to explain why the buy-bust team felt
"unsafe" in waiting for the representatives in Lim's house, considering that
the team is composed of at least ten (10) members, and the two accused
were the only persons in the house.
 Strict adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. No.
9165 and its IRR may be excused as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the confiscated items are properly preserved applies not just on
arrest and/or seizure by reason of a legitimate buy-bust operation but also
on those lawfully made in air or sea port, detention cell or national
penitentiary, checkpoint, moving vehicle, local or international
package/parcel/mail, or those by virtue of a consented search, stop and frisk
(Terry search), search incident to a lawful arrest, or application of plain
view doctrine where time is of the essence and the arrest and/or seizure
is/are not planned, arranged or scheduled in advance.
 To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures
related to illegal drugs are typically made without a warrant; hence, subject
to inquest proceedings. It appears however that the IRR on the Chain of
Custody has not been practiced in most cases elevated before the Court.
 Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested
docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following
should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers
must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of
R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing
officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as
the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the
sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not
immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must
refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to
determine the (non) existence of probable cause.
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court
may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment
order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of
probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.